Statement of
Nancy G. La Vigne, Ph.D.
Director, Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute
before the
Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations
United States House of Representatives
Lessons from the States: Responsible Prison Reform
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its
trustees, or its funders.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before
you to testify about lessons learned from responsible prison reform in the states and ways in
which the federal system can follow suit. I am the director of the Justice Policy Center at the
Urban Institute. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit research organization focused on social and
economic policy. The Justice Policy Center at Urban is made up of over three dozen researchers
studying a wide array of crime and justice issues. Our portfolio of research includes evaluations
of promising programs, reviews of the literature of “what works” in reducing recidivism, and
expertise in cost-benefit analysis. We have a long history of working with federal corrections
data and currently serve as the assessment partner on the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, a
federally funded program that reduces costs associated with state prison systems while enhancing
public safety. This expertise has made us well situated to study the successes of state prison
reform, translate those lessons to the federal context, and share our knowledge of evidence-based
programs and policies to inform best practice at the federal level, while also projecting the
impact of policy changes on prison population reductions and cost savings. I will begin my
remarks by highlighting the experiences of the states and then transition to a discussion of the
federal system, its challenges, and the opportunities for reform. In doing so, I will discuss the
importance of both front- and back-end changes to yield meaningful and lasting reforms.
Lessons from the States Without a doubt, in recent year the states have demonstrated tremendous leadership on
correctional reform. As detailed in our recent Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) State
Assessment Report,1 which highlights the experiences of 17 states, this leadership is
characterized by (1) a bipartisan commitment to reform; (2) the use of data on current sentencing
and corrections practices to inform policy; (3) a focus on responsible reform designed to reserve
prison for those who pose the greatest risk to public safety; and (4) the expanded use of
evidence-based practices (EBPs). Among these comprehensive reform efforts, many JRI states
have slowed prison growth, reduced overcrowding, and saved taxpayers money without
sacrificing public safety and other states are projected to do so. The crime rate in almost all of
states that have reduced their prison populations has continued to decline.2
The experiences of the states can be instructive; as illustrated in Figure 1, the state incarceration
rate has remained largely constant for the past decade while the federal incarceration rate has
grown by over a third. Given the wealth of information and lessons documented on the state
experience in our JRI assessment report, I respectfully request that the report be submitted in its
entirety into the record.
1
2
La Vigne et al. (2014).
Pew Charitable Trusts (2014).
2
Figure 1: Trends in State and Federal Incarceration Rates
700
Rate per 100,000 population
600
State
500
Fed*10
400
300
200
100
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.
While state prison systems differ significantly from the federal system, many drivers of prison
population growth remain the same. These include prison commitments and lengths of stay over
time. For example, some of the growth in state systems was driven by increases in truth-insentencing requirements, often requiring an 85 percent threshold for violent offenders and some
lower threshold for nonviolent offenders. The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-inSentencing Incentive (VOI/TIS) Grant Program, authorized by the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994, further incentivized states to adopt an 85% truth in sentencing
threshold with funding to build or expand prisons and jails.3 Faced with high prison populations
and shrinking budgets, however, many states recently revised their time served requirements to
allow for earlier release. These states have recognized that certainty, as a crucial attribute in the
sentencing process (especially for victims and victims’ advocates),4 is not compromised by
lowering time served thresholds as long as the change is well publicized. Given that with very
few exceptions federal inmates must serve over 87 percent of their sentence, these policy
changes are quite instructive.
Another means by which states reversed lengthy prison sentences is by expanding sentence
reduction or early release programs for offenders who comply with prison regulations and
programming requirements. At least 31 states offer inmates the opportunity to earn sentencereduction credits through participation in education, vocational training, substance abuse
3
4
Sabol et al. (2002); Ditton and Wilson (1999).
Stith and Koh (1993).
3
treatment and rehabilitation, and work programs; education and work programs are the most
common.5 These programs vary by programmatic requirements, extent of the credit, and
eligibility. Many states factor inmates’ compliance with prison rules and regulations into earned
time credit calculations.6 State JRI legislation commonly expanded earned credits, offering
sentence reductions to inmates who maintain good behavior or participate in prison programs. In
North Carolina, JRI legislation established a new sentencing option—advanced supervised
release—that created a reduced sentence for certain offenders who completed risk-reduction
programming.7 In Delaware, JRI legislation reduced lengths of stay by allowing offenders to
reduce their time served by up to 60 days a year on the basis of successful completion of
recidivism-reduction programs.8 Louisiana also revised its good time and earned credit statutes:
The amount prisoners could earn in sentence diminution for good time was increased. To
promote transparency, the rate of earning good time was set at one and a half days of good time
earned for every day served.9
Studies show that sentence reductions or early release resulting from earned and/or good time
credits can be a cost-effective method for reducing prison populations at minimal risk to public
safety. A review of these programs and public safety measures found no significant differences
between the recidivism rates of inmates released early and those who served longer without
sentence reductions, credits or earlier release.10 These programs have also been found to produce
significant cost savings.11 States’ experiences can guide efforts to expand and strengthen BOP’s
earned time, good time, and other early release programs.
Importantly, most of these state reform efforts involve both front- and back-end reforms, as
shown in Figure 2. Eleven of the seventeen JRI states profiled in our assessment report included
sentencing changes and departure mechanisms in their reform packages. These changes were
designed to reorient penalties and reclassify or redefine offenses, revise mandatory minimums
(including carving out exemptions for lower level offenders), and expand nonincarceration
options. In South Carolina, JRI legislation removed mandatory minimums for first and second
drug offenses such as manufacture and distribution where the drug quantity was below a certain
weight.12 In Kentucky, JRI legislation modified the state’s Controlled Substances Act by using
presumptive probation for first- and second-time drug possession offenses and establishing a
quantity-based scale of penalties for drug sales offenses.13 Arkansas increased the felony theft
5
Lawrence (2009). Some states also offer additional opportunities for earning earned time credits, such as
participation in “special programs,” disaster relief or conservation efforts, or by conducting extraordinary
meritorious service in prison.
6
Lawrence (2009).
7
North Carolina HB 642, 2011.
8
James and Agha (2013).
9
Louisiana Sentencing Commission (2012).
10
Guzman, Krisberg, and Tsukida (2008).
11
Drake, Barnoski, and Aos (2009).
12
South Carolina SB 1154, 2010.
13
Pew Center on the States (2011a).
4
threshold from $500 to $1,000 to reduce the number of felony convictions for low-level
offenders.14 Other sentencing changes encouraged substance abuse treatment rather than
incarceration for certain offenders. In Ohio, JRI legislation expanded the pool of individuals
eligible for diversion.15
Figure 2: State Responses to Population and Cost Drivers
Risk and Needs Assessments
16
Accountability Measures
15
Good time and Earned Credits
15
Intermediate and Graduated Sanctions
15
Community-based Treatment
11
Sentencing Changes and Departure Mechanisms
11
Mandatory Supervision Requirements
7
Problem-solving Courts
6
Streamlined Parole Processes
6
Expanded Parole Eligibility
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Number of States Reporting Response
Source: La Vigne, et al (2014).
As shown in Figure 2, our assessment of JRI states also illustrated how most of these states also
embraced evidence-based practices (EBPs) in their reform efforts. These include the use of risk
and needs assessments to guide decisions regarding sentencing, release, and program eligibility;
the adoption or expansion of problem solving courts; and the investment in programs proven to
reduce recidivism. Risk and needs assessments are evidence-based actuarial instruments that
determine an individual’s risk of reoffense and the types of services and programs that will best
reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Through risk-based sentencing, judges can review
assessment results when weighing different sentencing options. In Kentucky, JRI legislation
required the Department of Corrections to develop an online data system with objective
information, including an offender’s risk assessment rating, for use in plea negotiations and
sentencing.16 Georgia invested $175,000 to develop a risk assessment tool to assist judges with
sentencing by identifying lower risk, nonviolent offenders who could be safely kept out of
prison.17
14
Pew Center on the States (2011b).
Ohio HB 86, 2011.
16
Kentucky HB 463, 2011.
17
Pew Center on the States (2012a).
15
5
Another example of evidence-based practices among states engaged in correctional reform was
designed to address growing incarceration rates for low-level offenders. In response, JRI
legislation frequently expanded or improved problem-solving courts, a proven approach to
providing treatment for offenders with specific needs. Georgia’s legislation requires the
establishment of statewide policies to guide the operation and certification of problem-solving
courts for offenders with substance abuse and mental health disorders,18 including mandating a
drug court certification and peer review process to ensure adherence to EBPs.19 In West Virginia,
JRI legislation mandated expansion of drug courts from 31 to all 55 counties.20
Similarly, several states increased funding and expanded the use of evidence-based programs and
practices. For example, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, and South Dakota increased funding for
substance abuse treatment programs.21 New Hampshire is training its probation and parole
officers and corrections counselors in Effective Practices in Community Supervision.22
Pennsylvania emphasized the importance of community supports by requiring a reentry plan for
every prisoner.23
States were also deliberate about using EBPs to improve the effectiveness of community-based
supervision and services. Some states mandated that service providers must use EBPs to receive
state funds. States also required their own departments to use EBPs to supervise offenders and
increased EBP training opportunities. In addition to mandating the use of EBPs, Arkansas raised
supervision fees to support community-based programs that use EBPs and to train staff in EBP.24
Similarly, Pennsylvania rebid all contracts for community corrections centers to allow
contractors to be compensated at higher rates if they lower the recidivism rates of parolees in
their centers.25
The Federal Context Much can be learned from the experiences of the states. Many states came to table because they
realized that sustaining the current rate of incarceration was at great expense to other fiscal
priorities. They strove to yield a greater return - both in terms of public safety and public
finances - on their investment of correctional expenditures. And they aspired to reserve
expensive prison beds for those who posed the greatest risk to public safety. Many states were
also experiencing high levels of prison overcrowding that posed hazards to the safety of inmates
and staff. In many respects, the experiences of the federal prison system are no different.
18
Pew Center on the States (2012a).
Georgia HB 1176, 2012.
20
West Virginia SB 371, 2013.
21
Clement, Barbee, and Coombs (2011); Pew Center on the States (2012a); Pew Charitable Trusts (2013).
22
New Hampshire Department of Corrections (2013)
23
Pennsylvania SB 100, 2012.
24
Arkansas SB 750, 2011.
25
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services, Bureau of Procurement (2013).
19
6
Over the past several decades, the federal prison population has increased by a factor of eight
since 1980; its current population exceeds 216,000,26 with projections of continued growth for
the foreseeable future. This continuous growth has substantial costs. With each passing year, the
federal government has had to allocate more resources to the federal prison system at the
expense of other critical public safety priorities. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2000, the rate of growth
in the BOP budget is almost twice the rate of growth of the rest of the US Department of Justice
(DOJ).27 Despite increased funding, BOP-operated facilities remain dangerously overcrowded
and understaffed,28 while long waitlists persist for recidivism reduction programs.29
A wide array of actors, including members of this Committee, other Members of Congress, the
Attorney General, other administration officials, bipartisan policy advocates, and researchers,
have concluded that this growth and its associated costs are unsustainable. The basis for this
conclusion varies. Factors include
•
•
•
•
Fiscal impact. Resources spent on the BOP eclipse other budget priorities.
Overcrowding risks. Overcrowded facilities can jeopardize the safety of inmates and
staff and limit opportunities for effective programming that can reduce recidivism.
Fairness and equity concerns. High levels of incarceration may have disproportionate
effects on certain subpopulations and communities.
Inefficient resource allocation. Current research and recent evidence-based policy
changes implemented in states raise questions about the cost-effectiveness of existing
federal sentencing and corrections policies.
The high costs of maintaining a growing prisoner population have contributed to the increases in
the BOP budget relative to the rest of the DOJ: in FY 2000, BOP took up less than 20 percent of
the DOJ budget, but we project that without changes, by FY 2020, it will consume more than 30
percent. In these fiscally lean times, funding the expanding BOP population crowds out other
public safety priorities, including funding for federal investigators and federal prosecutors and
support for state and local governments.30
In early 2014, BOP facilities were operating at 32 percent above their rated capacity, with 51
percent crowding at high-security facilities and 41 percent at medium-security facilities in FY
2012. The capacity of BOP facilities in FY 2013 was 129,726, but BOP-operated facilities
26
BOP (2014b).
US DOJ, Summary of Budget Authority by Appropriation. Budget summaries for fiscal years 2000–13. See, for
example, http://www.justice.gov/archive/jmd/2k-summary/2kbudget.pdf (2000); and
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2013summary/pdf/budget-authority-appropriation.pdf (2013).
28
US DOJ (2014); GAO (2012).
29
GAO (2012)
30
Hearing on Federal Sentencing Options after Booker: Current State of Federal Sentencing (2012) (statement of
Matthew Axelrod, Associate Deputy Attorney General).
27
7
housed 176,849 inmates in FY 2013.31 Since FY 2000, the inmate-to-staff ratio has increased by
approximately 20 percent.
Recent efforts to reduce the federal population, including the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act
and the shift from mandatory to advisory sentencing guidelines, have slowed the rate of growth
in the federal prison population. But barring any meaningful changes in policy and practice, this
untenable status quo will be the norm for the coming decade: more recent BOP projections that
take into account the recent slowing of prison population growth still anticipate that by FY 2019,
the system will be 41 percent overcrowded, housing over 55,000 more people than its system
capacity.32
Beyond the fiscal problems associated with maintaining such a large federal prison population,
overcrowding threatens the safety of inmates and prison staff and undermines the ability to
provide effective programming.33
•
Overcrowding is most concentrated in high-security facilities, where 87 percent of
inmates have a history of violence. Overcrowding is currently above 50 percent in highsecurity facilities.34
•
The BOP has found that high inmate-to-corrections officer ratios are correlated with
increases in the incidence of serious assault.35 In February 2013, a BOP officer was killed
for the first time in five years, while working alone in a unit housing 130 inmates.36
•
Provision of programming and treatment designed to reduce recidivism is restricted due
to lack of space, inadequate staff, and long waiting lists for educational, treatment,
vocational, and other reentry programming.37
•
Health and safety hazards increase from over-used equipment, such as toilets, showers,
and food service equipment.38
Given the detrimental effect of this continued growth on prison conditions, inmate and staff
safety, and the ability to provide recidivism-reducing programming and treatment, it is critical
that options be explored that avert future expansion of this already bloated system.
31
US DOJ (2014). This represents the prison populations and capacity as of February 27, 2014. The population ebbs
and flows throughout the year as prisoners are released and new offenders are admitted.
32
US DOJ (2014).
33
GAO (2012).
34
US DOJ (2014).
35
BOP (2005).
36
Kalinowski and Halpin (2013).
37
GAO (2012).
38
GAO (2012).
8
Drivers of Federal Population Growth The number and composition of offenders committed to federal prison result from the
investigations pursued by law enforcement, cases accepted and charged by prosecutors, the
dispositions of those cases, the proportion of convicted offenders that receive a term of
imprisonment, and the imposed sentence.
The BOP does not play a role in these decisions: the combination of the volume of admissions
and sentence length drives the inmate population. The length of stay is largely determined by the
sentence imposed (informed by the relevant statutory penalties and federal sentencing
guidelines)39 and any subsequent sentence reductions that would reduce time served in prison.
Currently few options for reduced time exist, and most federal offenders sentenced to prison
serve at least 87.5 percent of their terms of imprisonment.40
The length of sentences—particularly for drug offenders, many of whom are subject to
mandatory minimum sentences—is an important determinant of the size of the prison population
and driver of population growth. Our 2012 study of the growth in the BOP population from 1998
to 2010 confirmed that time served in prison for drug offenses was the largest determinant of
population growth.41
While state lessons provide insights and guidance, it is important to recognize key differences
between the state experiences and problems facing the federal system:
•
•
Over half of state prisoners have committed violent crimes,42 while roughly the same
share of federal prisoners are drug offenders, and many others are immigration
offenders.43
Supervision violations are the most common driver of state correctional population
growth, yet did not emerge as a driver in our federal analyses.44
These differences, and others, have crucial implications in applying the JRI model to the federal
level, suggesting that policies focused on diverting and/or reducing sentences for drug and
immigration offenders are most likely to yield the greatest returns. Changes in sentencing laws
(particularly mandatory minimums) and practices (including prosecutorial charging and
declination practices), prison release policies, or both could directly decrease the time served and
thereby moderate federal prison population growth.
39
Recent legislative and policy changes to this domain may have the combined effect of reducing sentence length:
for example, the shift from mandatory to advisory sentencing guidelines and enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act
could moderate sentence lengths.
40
There are limited opportunities for some offenders to have their sentences reduced below 87.5 percent, based on
prison participation in residential drug treatment programming and, in some cases, compassionate release.
41
Mallik-Kane, Parthasarathy, and Adams (2012).
42
Carson and Golinelli (2013).
43
BOP (2014).
44
La Vigne and Samuels (2012).
9
Given that the federal prison population is driven by the volume of admissions and sentence
length, any attempt to address prison overcrowding and population growth that relies exclusively
on back-end policy options to shorten length of stay, while meaningful, would not be sufficient.
We find that a combination of both front- and back-end policies will be necessary to reduce
population growth in both the short and long term.A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers has taken
up this issue, proposing various legislative proposals that could go a long way in stemming the
tide of federal prison population growth. We have analyzed the projected impact of these
legislative proposals along with other possible policy changes in a 2013 report, Stemming the
Tide: Strategies to Reduce the Growth and Cut the Cost of the Federal Prison System.45 The
report chronicles the rampant increase in the size and cost of the federal prison system and
reviews 20 policy options designed to reduce the prison population while maintaining a focus on
public safety. Many of those options reflect legislative proposals introduced or sponsored by you
and your colleagues. Our overarching conclusion is that it will require changes to both
sentencing and release policies to reduce the federal prison population to levels that are within
their rated design capacity. Doing so can save billions of dollars that could be dedicated to other
important justice priorities, including programming and treatment to help federal prisoners lead
law abiding lives Rather than repeating them all here, I respectfully request to submit that report
as part of the official record.
A Focus on Prevention In reviewing the array of policy options to reduce the size and expense of the federal prison
system responsibly, it is important to acknowledge the critical role that prevention plays in both
public safety and correctional reform. A large and growing body of evidence indicates that
programs to prepare inmates for employment, address substance addiction, and maintain and
enhance family relationships are critical to reducing the likelihood of recidivism following their
release. Much of this evidence is embodied in the What Works in Reentry Clearinghouse,46
developed by the Urban Institute in partnership with the Council of State Governments’ Justice
Center as part of the Second Chance Act’s National Reentry Resource Center.47 For example, the
Clearinghouse found positive effects for many substance abuse treatment programs, including
the BOP's Residential Drug Abuse Program,48 Connecticut’s substance abuse treatment tier
programs,49 and Minnesota’s chemical dependency treatment program.50 Several prison
industries programs were found to be effective, including the federal prison system’s UNICOR
program,51 as were work release programs in Florida52 and Washington53 and a number of
educational and vocational programs, particularly postsecondary and adult basic education.
45
Samuels, La Vigne, and Taxy (2013).
http://whatworks.csgjusticecenter.org.
47
http://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc.
48
Pelissier et al. (2002).
49
Daley et al. (2004).
50
Duwe (2010).
51
Saylor and Gaes (1992).
46
10
Importantly, studies of in-prison visitation found that inmates who receive visits from family
members while incarcerated have reduced rates of recidivism compared to those who do not,
even when statistically controlling for other differences between these groups.54 This finding is
consistent with the Urban Institute’s reentry studies, which have found that families are an
important positive influence in the reentry process, with higher levels of family support linked to
higher employment rates and reduced recidivism following release55 and that in-prison contact
with family members is predictive of the strength of family relationships following release.56
It is important to note that many of the prison programs found to be effective in reducing
reoffending and substance abuse are also cost-effective. Welsh’s review of cost-benefit analyses
of reentry programs57 found that 12 of 14 evaluations of reentry programs resulted in positive
benefit-cost ratios, and a comprehensive review conducted by Aos yielded similar findings.58 In
an Urban Institute evaluation of the Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative,59 we found that the
effort returned three dollars in benefits for every dollar in new costs. Another Urban study60
found that jail reentry programming is cost-beneficial if the programming results in at least a 2
percent reduction in recidivism.
These findings make a strong case for the federal prison system to expand programming to serve
all the prisoners who can benefit from it, especially given that federal treatment and prison
industries programs feature prominently among the most effective reentry programs that have
been rigorously evaluated. Doing so, however, requires a reduction in the prison population to
relieve overcrowding and the shifting of resources saved from population reduction toward
program and treatment delivery. States across the country have done exactly that, offering
examples and lessons learned that the federal system could benefit from following.
Conclusions The BOP population has increased drastically since 1980. If current trends persist, spending on
prisons will continue to squeeze taxpayers for billions of dollars annually and eclipse other
spending priorities, such as federal investigators and prosecutors. Continued overcrowding
means that even fewer inmates will have access to reentry programming designed to reduce
recidivism and that prison facilities will become even more dangerous for prisoners and
correctional officers alike. The current status quo is untenable and it is anticipated to get even
worse.
52
Berk (2007).
Drake (2007).
54
Bales and Mears (2008); Derkzen, Gobeil, and Gileno (2009).
55
La Vigne, Visher, and Castro (2004); La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus (2009).
56
Naser and La Vigne (2006).
57
Welsh (2004).
58
Aos (2006).
59
Roman et al. (2007).
60
Roman and Chalfin (2006).
53
11
The federal government can learn important lessons from states and localities that have adopted
justice reinvestment to improve public safety in a cost-effective manner. First, bipartisan
collaboration and data-driven policy development has helped states overcome political and
philosophical differences that can hinder meaningful justice system reform. Second, as
documented in Urban’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report, EBPs intended
to address population and cost drivers have thus far yielded promising results.61 States are
implementing strategies that focus scarce prison resources on the most serious offenders and
provide effective alternatives for lower-level, non-violent offenders.
BOP has limited discretion and authority in reducing its burgeoning population, and even if its
authorities increase, most of the savings from back-end options under the perview of the BOP are
limited. Most options for significantly reducing the population would require statutory changes
or changes in policies by investigators, prosecutors, judges, and probation officers; it is
heartening that so many Members of Congress are advanceing cross-cutting and innovative
proposals to address this problem.
Our previous research has shown that lengthy drug sentences have been the biggest driver of
growth in the federal prison population, and our report confirms that the most direct and effectual
methods of decreasing the prison population target drug offenders specifically. Indeed, the only
policy change that would on its own eliminate overcrowding altogether is reducing certain drug
mandatory minimums. Other promising front-end changes include changing truth-in-sentencing
requirements, reducing the number of offenders entering the federal prison system for drug
offenses, and providing judges more discretion in departing below mandatory minimums.
At the same time, back-end changes targeting inmates already in BOP facilities could
immediately reduce overcrowding and save money. Options such as granting the statutory
changes of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactively to nonviolent inmates deemed at little risk to
public safety, changing the formula by which good time credits are calculated for inmates
already in BOP custody, bringing RDAP to scale, and providing some type of expanded
programming credit for other recidivism reduction programs would help reduce overcrowding
while not harming public safety. BOP is already reviewing and expanding its existing authorities,
which will generate further savings.
Aggressive action is needed to stem the tide of prison population growth: I hope that my
testimony and the accompanying Urban Institute reports illuminate the drivers of federal prison
population growth and potential solutions that go beyond stemming the tide of growth toward
actually reducing the prison population over the coming decade. One of our key findings is that
in order to alleviate dangerous conditions immediately and continue to slow growth, a
combination of front- and back-end policies will be necessary. Many states have done so and are
already reaping the benefits of cost savings while also improving public safety.
61
La Vigne et al (2014).
12
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
13
References Aos, Steve. 2006. “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction,
Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates.” Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-10-1201.pdf.
Bales, William D., and Daniel P. Mears. 2008. “Inmate Social Ties and the Transition to Society: Does
Visitation Reduce Recidivism?” Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency 45(3): 287–321.
Berk, Jillian. 2007. Does work release work? Unpublished manuscript. Providence, RI: Brown
University.
BJS (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). 1987. “Federal Offenses and Offenders: Sentencing and Time
Served.” Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/101043NCJRS.pdf.
BOP (Federal Bureau of Prisons). 2005. “The Effects of Changing Crowding and Staffing Levels in
Federal Prisons on Inmate Violence Rates.” Washington, DC: BOP.
———. 2013. “Quick Facts about the Bureau of Prisons.” Accessed September 23.
http://www.bop.gov/about/facts.jsp.
———. 2014. “Weekly Population Report.” Accessed September 19.
http://www.bop.gov/locations/weekly_report.jsp.
Carson, E. Ann and Daniela Golinelli. 2013. “Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases,
1991-2012.” Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Chiu, Tina. 2010. “It’s About Time: Aging Prisoners, Increasing Costs, and Geriatric Release.” New
York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Clement, Marshall, Andy Barbee, and Robert Coombs. 2011. “Justice Reinvestment in Hawaii: Detailed
Analyses and Policy Direction.” Presentation to Hawaii’s Justice Reinvestment Working Group,
Council of State Governments Justice Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, November 29.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services, Bureau of Procurement. 2013.
“Invitation for Bid for Housing and Treatment Services (IFB no. 610024114).” Harrisburg, PA:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services.
Daley, M., C.T. Love, D.S. Shepard, C.B. Petersen, K.L. White, and F.B. Hall. 2004. “Cost-Effectiveness
of Connecticut’s In-Prison Substance Abuse Treatment.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 39(3):
69–92.
Derkzen, D., R. Gobeil, and J. Gileno. 2009. “Visitation and Post-Release Outcome Among FederallySentenced Offenders.” Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Ditton, Paula M., and Doris James Wilson. 1999. Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons. Washington, DC:
US Department of Justice.
Drake, Elizabeth. 2007. “Does Participation in Washington’s Work Release Facilities Reduce
Recidivism?” Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
14
Drake, Elizabeth, Robert Barnoski, and Steve Aos. 2009. “Increased Earned Release from Prison: Impacts
of a 2003 Law on Recidivism and Crime Costs.” Revised. Olympia: Washington State Institute for
Public Policy. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=09-04-1201.
Duwe, Grant. 2010. “Prison-Based Chemical Dependency Treatment in Minnesota: An Outcome
Evaluation.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 6(1): 57–81.
GAO (US Government Accountability Office). 2012. “Bureau of Prisons: Growing Inmate Crowding
Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure.” GAO-12-743. Washington, DC: GAO.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648123.pdf.
Gray, Steven. 2011. “Why Mississippi Is Reversing Its Prison Policy.” Time, June 10,
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077089-1,00.html.
Guzman, Carolina, Barry Krisberg, and Chris Tsukida. 2008. “Accelerated Release: A Literature
Review.” Focus. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/focus-literature-review.pdf.
Hearing on Federal Sentencing Options after Booker: Current State of Federal Sentencing (2012)
(statement of Matthew Axelrod, Associate Deputy Attorney General).
http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Public_Hearings_and_Meetings/2012021516/Testimony_16_Axelrod.pdf.
Holder, Eric. 2013a. “Department Policy on Charging Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Recidivist
Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases.” Memorandum to the US Attorneys and Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/holder-mandatory-drug-minimums-memo.pdf.
———. 2013b. “Retroactive Application of Department Policy on Charging Mandatory Minimum
Sentences and Recidivist Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases.” Memorandum to the US Attorneys
and Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. Washington, DC: US Department of
Justice. http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/DOJ-Retro-MM-Policy-9.19.13.pdf.
Hunt, Kim Steven. 2011. “Recidivism among Offenders with Sentence Modifications Made Pursuant to
Retroactive Application of 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment.” Memorandum to Chair Saris,
Commissioners, and Judith Sheon. Washington, DC: US Sentencing Commission.
James, Juliene and Suzanne Agha. 2013. “Justice Reinvestment in Action: The Delaware Model.” New
York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Justice Policy Institute. 2011. “Due South: Mississippi: Rolling Back ‘Truth-in-Sentencing’ Laws.”
Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/due_south_-_mississippi.pdf.
Kalinowski, Bob, and James Halpin. 2013. “Corrections Officer Killed at Federal Prison in Wayne
County.” Scranton Times-Tribune, February 27. http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/corrections-officerkilled-at-federal-prison-in-wayne-county-1.1450710.
La Vigne, Nancy G., Visher, Christine A. and Jennifer Castro. 2004. “Chicago Prisoners’ Experiences
Returning Home.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
http://www.urban.org/publications/311115.html.
15
La Vigne, Nancy G., Tracey L. Shollenberger, and Sara Debus. 2009. “One Year Out: The Experiences of
Male Returning Prisoners in Houston, Texas.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
http://www.urban.org/publications/411911.html.
La Vigne, Nancy G. and Julie Samuels. 2012. “The Growth & Increasing Cost of the Federal Prison
System: Drivers and Potential Solutions.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412693-The-Growth-and-Increasing-Cost-of-the-FederalPrison-System.pdf
La Vigne, Nancy G., Samuel Bieler, Lindsey Cramer, Helen Ho, Cybele Kotonias, Deborah Mayer, David
McClure, Laura Pacifici, Erika Parks, Bryce Peterson, and Julie Samuels. 2014. “Justice
Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412994-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-State-AssessmentReport.pdf
Lawrence, Alison. 2009. “Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners.”
Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/earned_time_report.pdf.
Louisiana Sentencing Commission. 2012. “Louisiana Legislature Adopts All Recommendations of the
Louisiana Sentencing Commission.” June 4.
Mallik-Kane, Kamala, Barbara Parthasarathy, and William Adams. 2012. “Examining Growth in the
Federal Prison Population, 1998 to 2010.” Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239785.pdf.
Naser, Rebecca L., and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2006. “Family Support in the Prisoner Reentry Process:
Expectations and Realities.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 43(1): 93–106.
New Hampshire Department of Corrections. 2013. “What’s up DOC? The Newsletter of the NH
Department of Corrections, July 2013.” Concord, NH: New Hampshire Department of Corrections.
Accessed July 25. http://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/divisions/publicinformation/documents/wud.pdf.
OIG (US Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General). 2011. “The Department of Justice’s
International Prisoner Transfer Program.” Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2011/e1202.pdf.
Pelissier, Bernadette, Sue Wallace, J.A. O’Neil, Gerry Gaes, Scott D. Camp, William Rhodes, and
William Saylor. 2002. “Federal Prison Residential Drug Treatment Reduces Substance Use and
Arrests after Release.” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 27(2): 315–37.
Pelissier, Bernadette, William Rhodes, William Saylor, Gerry Gaes, Scott D. Camp, Suzy D. Vanyur, and
Sue Wallace. 2000. “TRIAD Drug Treatment Evaluation Project Final Report of Three-Year
Outcomes: Part 1.” Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.
http://www.bop.gov/news/PDFs/TRIAD/TRIAD_pref.pdf.
Pew Center on the States. 2011a. “2011 Kentucky Reforms Cut Recidivism, Costs: Broad Bill Enacts
Evidence-Based Strategies.” Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
———. 2011b. “Arkansas’s 2011 Public Safety Reform: Legislation to Reduce Recidivism and Curtail
Prison Growth.” Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
16
———. 2012a. “2012 Georgia Public Safety Reform: Legislation to Reduce Recidivism and Cut
Corrections Costs.” Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
———. 2012b. “Oregon Prison Drivers.” Presentation to Oregon’s JRI Working Group, Salem, Oregon,
June 29.
Pew Charitable Trusts. 2013. “South Dakota’s 2013 Criminal Justice Initiative: Legislation to Improve
Public Safety, Hold Offenders More Accountable, and Reduce Corrections Spending.” Washington,
DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
Pew Charitable Trusts. 2014. “US Imprisonment Rate Continues to Drop Amid Falling Crime Rates.”
March 12, 2014. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases/2014/03/14/usimprisonment-rate-continues-to-drop-amid-falling-crime-rates. Last accessed July 11, 2014.
Roman, John, and Aaron Chalfin. 2006. “Does It Pay to Invest in Jail Reentry Programs?” Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/projects/reentryroundtable/upload/roman_chalfin.pdf.
Roman, John, Lisa Brooks, Erica Lagerson, Aaron Chalfin, and Bogdon Tereshchenko. 2007. Impact and
Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311421_Maryland_Reentry.pdf.
Sabol, William J., Katherine Rosich, Kamala Mallik-Kane, David P. Kirk, and Glenn Dubin. 2002. The
Influences of Truth-in-Sentencing Reforms on Changes States’ Sentencing Practices and Prison
Populations. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Samuels, Julie, Nancy G. La Vigne, and Samuel Taxy. 2013. Stemming the Tide: Strategies to Reduce the
Growth and Cut the Cost of the Federal Prison System. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
http://www.urban.org/publications/412932.html.
Saylor, William, and Gerry Gaes. 1992. “The Post-Release Employment Project: Prison Work Has
Measurable Effects on Post-Release Success.” Federal Prisons Journal 2(4): 33–36.
Stith, Kate, and Steve Y. Koh. 1993. “Politics of Sentencing Reform: The Legislative History of the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines.” Federal Scholarship Series 1273. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2276&context=fss_papers.
US DOJ (Department of Justice). 2014. “FY 2015 Performance Budget Congressional Submission:
Federal Prison System Salaries and Expenses.” Washington, DC: US DOJ.
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2015justification/pdf/bop-se-justification.pdf.
USSC (US Sentencing Commission). 2004. “Measuring Recidivisim: The Criminal History Computation
of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.” Washington, DC: USSC.
———. 2011. Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice
System. Washington, DC: USSC.
———. 2013. 2012 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. Washington, DC: USSC.
Welsh, Brandon. 2004. “Monetary Costs and Benefits of Correctional Treatment Programs: Implications
for Offender Reentry.” Federal Probation 68(2).
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=208065.
17